Yes indeedy!! Try Godel Escher Bach by Douglas Hofstadter, a phun book if
you're into puzzles. Godel's incompleteness theorem is a toughie; a
simplistic interpretation might be that any self-consistent logical system
MUST include axioms (good ol' 'self-evident truths') not deriveable from
the self-consistent logical system itself . . . . . . . .or it collapses
into simple identity or absurdity. Thus again, we see that progress
depends on the unreasonable<g>.
At 09:04 AM 11/2/02 -0700, you wrote:
Ever read the work itself or an evaluation by competnet mathamiticians of
Godel's Incompleteness Theorm? I do not have the skills to read it
myself, but supposidly qualified others say that it proves that anything
that is true is not provable.
How 'bout the converse: "everything that is provable is not true." Naahhh,
don't even go there.
A small card. On one side is written, "The statement on the other side of
this card is false". On the reverse, "The statement on the other side of
this card is true."
James-Osbourne: Holmes
Another card. On one side is written: "The statement on the other side of
this card is false, or true."
On the reverse is written: "The statement on
the other side of this card is nul."
So much simpler<??> that way . . . . . . . ?
Take care, the roads are slipp'ry; Malcolm
-----Original Message-----
From: Malcolm Stebbins [mailto:s...@asis.com]
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 11:13 PM
To: silver-list@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: CS>Reality lives !!
Hi; 'Not only'. On the quantum level, time is reversible;
"instantaneous" does not depend on particulate time, such as the Bhuddist
'Kalapa' the smallest unit of time deemed possible, and avoiding the
sillophophical stuff that just begs to be thrashed on the question of
time, . . . . Existence and becoming (and un-becoming) may or may not be
'binary'. In Mathematics the open interval, f'rinstance, is a little
jolt; the interval [1 - 2), open at the upper end, never reaches "two";
there's always an infinitude of points between however-close-you-are to
"two", and "two" itself. This is similar to the race between Achilles and
the Tortoise in one sense, but avoids the issue of time. Also, If
something is not complete how can it exist? On the other hand, how can
"it" not exist, if you can tell "it" is not complete? And for a more
binary disclaimer, It's only fair I confess; I always lie: always!
Phast Phred (aka: "A")
At 06:07 PM 11/1/02 -0700, you wrote:
Involving time is the problem
James-Osbourne: Holmes
-----Original Message-----
From: Jack Dayton [mailto:jack...@harbornet.com]
See what you think of this as a reality based statement:
"Every thing is either A or nonA at any given time".
Jack
Needs Work
--
